Sometimes reality is stranger than science fiction. That's the case with hydraulic fracturing, or fracking -- a dangerous technology that's much like setting off a giant pipe bomb four or five miles underground. Millions of gallons of water, chemicals and sand are injected deep into shale rock formations at high pressures to break open the rock and release the gas.
The promoters say its safe. Or that's what the oil and gas industry would have you think, anyway. But behind the scenes, the industry is fighting tooth and nail to keep fracking unregulated, and its claims of safety, economic prosperity and energy security unquestioned. Their high-dollar campaign to put a happy face on this risky practice is designed to challenge the growing movement to ban fracking that's heating up across the country: people are saying no to this risky technology that, if pursued, will negatively impact our health, water, and economy.
Here are some of the ways the oil and gas industry is attempting to "buy" public sentiment and a positive policy environment for its newest darling -- shale gas fracking:
1. Legal Bribery in Washington
The industry spent over $145 million lobbying Washington in 2010, making it one of the top five industries spending big money to buy influence -- and it seems to be working: In January 2011, bipartisan congressional members of the Natural Gas Caucus opposed proposed U.S. Department of Interior rules to disclose fracking chemicals used on public lands; this caucus' 83 members received a combined $1,742,572 in campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry between 2009 and 2010, according to a Propublica investigation.
2. Slick PR and Ad Campaigns
By now, you may have seen an industry ad like this, talking up gas as a means of American energy independence and prosperity, but what they don't say is that there are plans to export it to China and India -- and profits too, as these companies are increasingly multinational or even foreign-owned.
Their hired PR guns also come out blazing when unfavorable coverage of the industry erupts, as it did in the New York Times, when reporter Ian Urbina exposed industry insider emails questioning the favorable forecasts the industry has put out on fracking -- one insider going so far as calling drilling leases "Ponzi schemes."
The industry didn't like that.
As Politico reports, John Hanger, once secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and now an environmental consultant, compared Urbina to Judith Miller and Jayson Blair, saying "This is not their [the Times'] first rogue reporter." It appears his consulting services include acting as an attack dog against reporters who ask too many questions about fracking.
The Marcellus Shale Coalition (whose members have a financial stake in fracking the Marcellus shale) spent a total of $1.8 million on its PR initiatives in 2009, while the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) has an $8 million budget, according to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. One of IPAA's initiatives is Energy in Depth, a web site devoted to debunking the documentary Gasland.
Now, the American Petroleum Institute (API) is poised to spend $20 million on an "advocacy campaign". We don't know for sure, but given the industry's difficulties in defending fracking over recent months, we bet this money will go towards a campaign that will continue to spin fracking as a safe means of achieving prosperity and energy security.
3. Buying Silence
How does the industry keep contamination under wraps? It pays settlement fees to families whose water has been contaminated by shale gas drilling -- fees that hinge on the landowner signing a confidentiality agreement to keep details about the case from government agencies, the media and the public.
As highlighted in a recent New York Times article, the industry pays to keep details of the public safety problems associated with gas drilling hidden from government agencies that could do something to regulate it. This has been happening for decades, and it allows the industry to continue using one of its most disingenuous talking points: that there have been no documented cases of contamination from gas drilling.
4. Using Legal Muscle to Stop Public Inquiry
In May, New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman sued federal agencies to provide a full environmental review of fracking in the Delaware River Basin since it could affect the drinking water of nine million New Yorkers.
Well, the industry didn't like that, either.
API, IPAA and the US Oil & Gas Association intervened in the case, arguing that its members would be adversely affected. But two of the 10 federal agencies sued by Schneiderman have actually supported further review of fracking -- the National Park Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
5. Influence Pedaling Beyond Washington
Recently, Wellsburg, West Virginia rescinded a ban on shale gas drilling. It appears that one reason for this might be that Chesapeake Energy recently rescinded its funding for the community's school music program in direct response to the ban. $30,000 might not seem like a lot, but for a struggling rural school system, it certainly is no small potatoes.
A more straightforward example of how the industry buys influence beyond Washington is in New York State, where the oil and gas industry spent $1,204,567 lobbying against fracking moratorium bills in 2010, outspending groups supporting the bills 4 to 1.
Spending big money to influence policy in New York paid off for the industry. The New York Department of Environmental Conservation released a report early last month suggesting that 85 percent of the Marcellus Shale be opened up to fracking, and Governor Andrew Cuomo appears to be on board.
6. Buying Academic Shills
One of the underhanded tactics in the industry's arsenal is paying academic shills who prepare reports that shine a rosy light on the industry -- while glossing over serious concerns. As I wrote in June, an MIT report titled, "The Future of Natural Gas" was funded by the oil and gas industry. As they write on their site:
In FY 2010, MIT's industry-sponsored research totaled $111 million. More than 800 firms now work with MIT, both in Institute-wide programs such as the Industrial Liaison Program and the MIT Energy Initiative and in smaller collaborations... More than 180 companies partner with the program to improve their access to MIT and advance their research agendas [emphasis added].
Penn State also recently released a pro-fracking report funded by the Marcellus Shale Coalition. Media Matters for America recently took the New York Post to task for citing the report in an editorial supporting fracking, without mentioning the industry group that actually paid for it.
This happens all too often, and is a way for the industry to launder credibility for its position through third-party academic institutions.
7. Swag
It's not just the Oscars and Sundance that give good swag. Turns out the oil and gas industry does too, especially when they think they can help buy the impression that public sentiment is pro-fracking. At a June hearing in Washington, Pennsylvania, numerous landowners who had leased their land to gas drillers appeared at a hearing to talk about the benefits of fracking. But it's what got them there that's the interesting story: they were offered Pirates tickets, in addition to hotel rooms and travel expenses. That was one way the industry assured that the spaces at the hearing would be filled with pro-drilling voices.
It's not much better in Washington, D.C. At the July 13 meeting of the Natural Gas Subcommittee of the Secretary of Energy, Advisory Board Safety on Shale Gas Development, I pointed out the lack of non-industry involvement in the proceedings (click here to see my testimony.)
What You Can Do
If, despite the industry hype, you are still concerned about fracking, you're not alone. In fact, a movement is growing to ban this risky, destructive practice that has led to explosions, leaks, adverse health effects from air pollution, and more. More than 76 local and state governments have passed resolutions against fracking. Click here to become part of that movement.
Follow Wenonah Hauter on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@foodandwater
Frack Friends and Foes Blast Energy Department
Worries on rise about Windsor oil well
Group calls on NY DEC to extend comment period for report
PA Rep. Makes Hilarious Comment on Fracking, STDs
Rural NY town wrestles with natural gas fracking
Will New Fracking Rules Hammer Your Energy Stocks?
Poll: Most want Indian Point kept open, NYers split on fracking
In May, New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman sued federal agencies to provide a full environmental review of fracking in the Delaware River Basin since it could affect the drinking water of nine million New Yorkers.
Well, the industry didn't like that, either.
API, IPAA and the US Oil & Gas Association intervened in the case, arguing that its members would be adversely affected. But two of the 10 federal agencies sued by Schneiderman have actually supported further review of fracking -- the National Park Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
--- They are also not above filing lawsuits against residents who are speaking out to protect their homes, families and communities.
3 families in Dallas, PA are being sued by Chief for standing up and speaking out.
NOTE: last paragraph of original news article:
http://citizensvoice.com/news/chief-sues-dallas-twp-residents-over-anti-pipeline-tactics-1.1207735#axzz1ZAizzBgF
"In addition to being compensated for all actual losses and injuries sustained, C...hief Gathering also is entitled to punitive damages arising out of the Dickson/Watkins Defendants' outrageous and intentional conduct," the suit states. Punitive damages are "also appropriate to deter them and others like them from engaging in such conduct in the future."
To repeat... "Punitive damages are "also appropriate to DETER THEM AND OTHERS LIKE THEM FROM ENGAGING IN SUCH CONDUCT IN THE FUTURE."
Fear Tactic? you bet.
At any rate, here is the gist.
MIT is the premiere scientific research institution in the world. Bar none. It has around for over 150 years, and it has been the most respected institution of scientific research for perhaps 100 years.
MIT has an endowment of over 8 billion dollars.
MIT is not going to "sell" it's reputation to anyone, for any price. However, the idea that it would somehow compromise itself for $111 million of research grants is truly preposterous. MIT can leave that much money sitting underneath the couch and not notice it.
Finally, if MIT (and all these other scientific institutions that feel shale gas extraction is reasonably safe) were so easily bought off, why do they all concur with anthropogenic global warming? It seems strange that the relatively small and new shale gas industry could somehow buy the integrity of so many scientific institutions, but the combined wallets of the oil and coal companies could not.
Truly, slagging on the reputation of MIT in order to justify your would views requires a full disassocation from reality.
I was one of the landowners that attended this hearing. No tickets, besides you usually can't give Pirates tix away. I appreciated the opportunity to ride a bus with no bathroom 7 hours each way to attend this hearing. I had to take 2 days off to travel to this hearing before a federal panel. I think that my voice deserves to be heard as much as the voice of the NIMBY hypocrite obstructionists who all use fossil fuels yet rail against the gas industry. You can read more about our involvement at his hearing here:
http://tinyurl.com/3rkzybd
There were eleven of us if you can legitimately call that numerous and MY PROPERTY IS NOT LEASED and this is only a minor point compared to all of the other MISINFORMATION in your article.
BUT the interesting part is Hudson LLC Group, the owners of this 1 lonely little well are a hedge fund manager with only one office in NYC. This summer apparently most ALL of the townspeople have gotten wind and are up in arms about the danger to their water and have been fighting tooth and nail to close it down, and cannot close it down. Hudson LLC is actively selling shares in some speculative commodities of the brazillions of gallons of nat. gas coming from it. One activist townsperson told me she thought there must be "a ton" of gas in that well, as she had discovered Hudson had lobbied our Congresswoman so heavily and were spending so much to fight to keep it open. They have sold so many shares already.
Hmmmmm. Now there are 2 REAL wells about 100 miles to our east that are pumping. They are huge and their operations LOOK pretty well fitted out with huge tanks, open pools, office, rig, etc..., (let's hope they are fitted out properly), but this rusty little well is not moving, there is no machinery around it, no tanks or used fluid/water pool nearby, nothing.....
So. If your broker offers you the goldmine opportunity to invest in a gusher in western WY called the Scott Well #2? DON'T BUY IT!
I wonder how many more scams are out there like this.
Part 1
This year, 1 nat. gas well, (using fracing) went up about 10-15 miles outside my tiny WY town, ON the Shoshone Nat. Park land. Lats year I was asked to write to the forestry service and our Senators and Congresswoman to stop it. The company, Hudson LLC group, held the lease for 9 years and had not bothered and were about to lose the lease, unless they drilled asap.
My fellow 'Greenies' were in opposition because it was in the elk calving ground and grizzly bear feeding ground. It would disrupt wildlife and under that land were aquifiers for the town and 2 ranches.
I researched as much as I could before writing as I didn't want to be an uninformed NIMBY. Learned a lot about the process, the booming nat. gas industry and the debate..... One thing that prompted me to write was that according to the USGS s!te, in exploration, this area was not thought to have enough gas to bother with, a very insignificant ammount. This is why they had not bothered with it for 9 years. That was last year. I and others wrote our letters to no avail. The well went up and is supposedly operating, although driving through that remote little valley, it looks derelict today. (?)
1. What, and so-called "environmental" groups don't have lobbyists? Didn't Bloomberg just donate $50 MILLION alone to the anti-coal lobby, or was I not supposed to read that?
2. Not as slick as PETA - hey, not many hot naked girls in fraccing, I guess...
3. It is confidential to the public, as are most settlements. Not to the EPA or other regulatory organizations. They can get what is called a subpoena - you may have heard of that.
4. And groups like Sierra Club and NRDC don't have lawyers who sue? Are they not muscle, and if not, why don't you get better lawyers? Just askin'...
5. Yes, companies should support towns that they are banned from... Right... I'd have done the same thing.
6. WIll not dignify your statements against MIT, Duke, or any other college that has done studies about fraccing. Your statements speak for themselves, and die on the merits.
7. They are part owners in the wells on their land - the company paid for their expenses and lodging to have a meeting. People who were against fraccing didn't sell their leases so aren't at the meeting, obviously...
The Club's Natural Gas Reform:page is here http://www.sierraclub.org/naturalgas/
There is also a Facebook group called Sierra Club 'Hydro-Fracking' Team which people can join and post stories and comments on this issue.
PA has more gas than Saudi Arabia has oil, but PA is now one of TWO places on Earth WITHOUT a gas extraction tax.
The other is Somalia.
Corbett will watch every school close and every road crumble before he goes against the bidding of his puppeteers.
Tom Corrupt.
So how do you keep screwups from happening? Take a cue from civil aviation, where the emphasis is on certifying that the people who fly, build, and maintain airplanes are competent. That's not done unilaterally by the government in an "adversary proceeding", it's a co-operative government-industry joint enterprise. What we need is less media arm-waving, and more of a message to oil-industry leaders "You've got a serious public confidence problem. Best way to solve it is to take the lead in setting competence standards for drilling of all kinds -- then prod government into getting on board." That's how the first CIvil Aviation Authority came to be in the 1920s; that's how, in the 1970s-80s, the Motorcycle Safety Foundation dragged the various states kicking and screaming into doing proper training, testing and licensing of motorcycle riders. Adversarial action only enriches lawyers and gives bureaucrats a lifetime sinecure.
The rest of us aren't going along with this rodeo.
Like the Horizon oil spill, it happens and then what?
Not your backyard eh?
The new commercials LITERALLY make me sick to my stomach.